The long arm of Google is now reaching out to Europe to get changes in the treatment of out-of-print and orphan books in connection with its plan to digitize all books and sell them link here. The European Commission is proposing draft rules to make access easier and a single digital copyright to cover all of the EU rather than many, each with one of the member states. A hearing will be held next month in Brussels on Google's efforts to digitize major collections of books and the company's proposed settlement with book publishers in the United States. Public comment will be open until mid-November. So far, the proposal sounds like that in the United States, to create registries of orphan and out of print works so that companies like Google could reproduce works contained in the registry in exchange for paying money to a central authority that would redistribute the proceeds.

The news article implies that the European commissioner views the US settlement favorably. That would make the work of dissenters from the US deal more difficult. Nothing in the news story suggests that Google's lock on the sale of the digitized copies of books would be diminished so the problem of getting competition remains.

Ah, yes. But Google is being innovative, right? So, we should blindly support them. No need for intellectual property here because anyone is free to compete in this space. Beeswax would have us believe that anyone, including himself, could readily set up shop and do the same thing.

Large companies will always have advantages in certain markets over individuals and small companies, and here is clearly a case where that is true. You may eliminate government monopolies [doubtful, but possible], but eliminating de facto corporate monopolies is much more difficult, and in some cases, legally impossible.

"[insults deleted]"

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"Large companies will always have advantages in certain markets over individuals and small companies, and here is clearly a case where that is true."

Getting rid of intellectual monopoly will reduce that, not make it worse. Large companies always gain an advantage if there is a high barrier to entry somewhere, and one thing IM is good for is creating high barriers to entry: patent thickets, especially, do this.

Beeswax:

[Paranoid delusions of persecution deleted.]

"Large companies will always have advantages in certain markets over individuals and small companies, and here is clearly a case where that is true."

Getting rid of intellectual monopoly will reduce that, not make it worse.

If you are considering things such as airplanes, vehicles, transmissions, engines, farm equipment, etc., you are absolutely wrong. Getting rid of intellectual PROPERTY RIGHTS will make control by large companies not only worse, but will virtually assure their perpetual control of those markets.

Large companies always gain an advantage if there is a high barrier to entry somewhere...

Your eyes see, yet they do not. Choose a field, say, automobiles. There is a huge barrier to entry, and that is the tremendous capital investment required in buildings, assemblies lines, test equipment, etc., along with a huge distribution and service network. Intellectual property provides an opportunity for a new entrant to balance the advantages of the incumbent companies. The very barrier you speak of is a barrier between the smaller company and the huge company that prevents the huge company from eliminating the small company easily.

Alonniemouse wrote:

"Beeswax:

[insult deleted]"

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

""Getting rid of intellectual monopoly will reduce that, not make it worse."

If you are considering things such as airplanes, vehicles, transmissions, engines, farm equipment, etc., you are [insult deleted]."

No, you're the stupid one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

IP raises the barrier to entry. Raising the barrier to entry favors big players over small and incumbents over upstarts.

This is Econ 101, Lonnie. You really should know basic facts like those before you discuss the subject.

Heck, if your theory were right, copyright would ensure against musicians being screwed by the major labels, and its abolition would make them vulnerable. We've all seen in recent years that it's actually the other way around.

""Large companies always gain an advantage if there is a high barrier to entry somewhere..."

[insult deleted]"

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Clearly, you could think of no logical counter to my argument, to judge by your actual response being a personal attack instead of a logical rebuttal of any sort.

"Choose a field, say, automobiles. There is a huge barrier to entry, and that is the tremendous capital investment required in buildings, assemblies lines, test equipment, etc., along with a huge distribution and service network."

That's a barrier to entry to mass-producing automobiles, not a barrier to entry to making automotive innovations. (Note the distinction.)

A waxy insect wrote...

[Numerous statements of paranoid delusion deleted.]

IP raises the barrier to entry. Raising the barrier to entry favors big players over small and incumbents over upstarts.

[Ad hominem argument deleted.]

I point you to Paice v. Toyota. I point you to Anascape v. Nintendo. I refer you to Opti v. Apple. Then there is TiVo v. Echostar. All the plaintiffs were smaller companies. All the defendants were large companies. The small, innovative company won in each of these cases. Econ 101 notwithstanding, a patent enabled a small company to compete with a large company in each of these cases where the large company thought because of its size that it could copy or infringe an invention of a smaller company.

Heck, if your theory were right, copyright would ensure against musicians being screwed by the major labels, and its abolition would make them vulnerable. We've all seen in recent years that it's actually the other way around.

Copyright and patents are apples and oranges; thou shouldst not compare the two. However, since you pulled out a non sequitur, I will attempt to answer, though I know very little about copyrights.

The "screwed" that you refer to seems to be because the artists sign a contract with the major labels. Contract law trumps copyright law when a copyright holder signs their rights away. I have always wondered why people do that, but artists seem to think that being an artist makes them immune from having someone take advantage of them.

[Another ad hominem statement deleted. Another statement of paranoid delusion deleted.]

"Choose a field, say, automobiles. There is a huge barrier to entry, and that is the tremendous capital investment required in buildings, assemblies lines, test equipment, etc., along with a huge distribution and service network."

That's a barrier to entry to mass-producing automobiles, not a barrier to entry to making automotive innovations. (Note the distinction.)

I grant you that the investment is for mass-producing automobiles, assuming that "mass production" means making other than custom made automobiles. However, custom-made automobiles have an insufficient market to sustain virtually all manufacturers. Even Rolls-Royce uses "mass production" for much of their production - "mass production," even of luxury brands, has been shown to be a more reliable method of producing products versus building one at a time.

So, in order to be a COMPETITIVE entrant in a field such as automotive, the investment will be tremendous, and that is ECON 101.

Alonniemouse wrote:

"[insults deleted]"

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

"I point you to Paice v. Toyota. I point you to Anascape v. Nintendo. I refer you to Opti v. Apple. Then there is TiVo v. Echostar. All the plaintiffs were smaller companies. All the defendants were large companies."

And for every case like that there are ten, or even a hundred, where it's the other way around. Big companies can afford more and better lawyers, more litigation, and more of the patents themselves than small ones.

""Heck, if your theory were right, copyright would ensure against musicians being screwed by the major labels, and its abolition would make them vulnerable. We've all seen in recent years that it's actually the other way around."

Copyright and patents are apples and oranges; thou shouldst not compare the two."

Your theory applies equally to both, and to any other artificial scarcity monopoly supposedly created to give the little guy more bargaining power when entering a market. Your theory makes predictions that are easily falsified. Your theory is wrong.

"However, since you pulled out a non sequitur"

I did not.

"[insult deleted]"

No, you're the crazy one.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

""That's a barrier to entry to mass-producing automobiles, not a barrier to entry to making automotive innovations. (Note the distinction.)"

I grant you that the investment is for mass-producing automobiles, assuming that "mass production" means making other than custom made automobiles."

Well, there you go, then.

Patents are supposedly to enable recovery of the costs of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. Not the capital costs of factories after the R&D is done.

Checkmate.